Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal corrects errors in assessing income, emphasizes fair treatment for taxpayers.</h1> <h3>Sukumar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. And Sanskriti Traces (P) Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward 24 (3), New Delhi</h3> Sukumar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. And Sanskriti Traces (P) Ltd. Versus ITO, Ward 24 (3), New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of considering share application money/share premium as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of making additions on a substantive basis despite the addition being made in the hands of the ultimate beneficiary.3. Application of Section 56(2)(viib) regarding excess share premium.4. Addition of notional commission income.5. Consistency in the approach of the revenue and non-discrimination among assessees.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Considering Share Application Money/Share Premium as Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:The appeals challenged the orders where the CIT(A) considered share application money/share premium as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee received Rs. 1,23,50,000/- and Rs. 10,39,00,000/- respectively from various entities. The AO required the assessee to produce the share applicants along with their books of accounts and bank statements. The assessee failed to produce these documents, leading the AO to treat the share application money as unexplained cash credit due to the failure to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.2. Validity of Making Additions on a Substantive Basis Despite the Addition Being Made in the Hands of the Ultimate Beneficiary:The AO initially made the addition on a protective basis, noting that the ultimate beneficiary of the funds was M/s Rockland Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rockland Hotels Ltd. The CIT(A) converted these protective additions into substantive additions. The appeals argued that the ultimate beneficiary had already admitted the funds in their assessments, and thus, the addition should not be made substantively in the assessee's hands. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) erred in converting the protective additions into substantive ones, as the ultimate beneficiary had already been taxed on these amounts.3. Application of Section 56(2)(viib) Regarding Excess Share Premium:The AO also invoked Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, adding Rs. 90,57,490/- as income from other sources, arguing that the share premium received exceeded the market value of the shares. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the revenue did not appeal against this deletion. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) correctly held that Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable in this case.4. Addition of Notional Commission Income:The AO added a notional commission income of Rs. 2,47,000/-, assuming the assessee earned commission by providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal found no evidence of such commission being paid by Rockland Hospitals, as no such findings were made during the search of Rockland Group. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the utilization of the amounts claimed as administrative expenses by the assessee.5. Consistency in the Approach of the Revenue and Non-Discrimination Among Assessees:The appeals argued for consistency in the revenue's approach and non-discrimination among assessees involved in similar transactions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that no additions were made for similar transactions in the cases of Purnendu Traders and Ashwin Pharmaceuticals. Thus, the revenue's approach should be consistent, and no discrimination should be made.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) and the AO were incorrect in making substantive/protective additions in the hands of the assessees. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the difference in the amounts received and transferred to Rockland Hospitals and decide the matter as per law, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found